The Last Days Of Socrates Piety Analysis

Throughout the dialogue between Euthyphro and Socrates, they both try to come up with an understanding of the relationship between piety and justice. Within the discussion, Socrates questions Euthyphro to see if he can define the difference and similarities between justice and piety, and if they interact with each other. Eventually, Euthyphro and Socrates came up with the conclusion that justice is a part of piety. This is the relationship that I agree most with because in my own opinion, I believe that all of the gods and people agree that human beings who commit unjust actions need to be punished for their actions.

If it were the exact definition, only Euthyphro would be pious. He said that Euthyphro did not understand the difference between a definition and an example. Next, Euthyphro says that piety is found in things that are dear to the gods (7a). Socrates again rejected Euthyphro’s definition of piety. The Greek gods were anthropomorphic; therefore, another may despise what would be dear to one god. This definition offered was not distinct. Finally, Euthyphro said that what is pious is what loved by the gods (9e). However, Euthyphro can’t answer whether something is pious because it is loved or it is loved because it is pious. He can’t conceive the difference between cause and effect. It is in the Euthyphro that Socrates begins his defense of his actions and principles to the reader. A priest can’t give him a concise answer as to what is religious; therefore, how can anyone else, especially one less religiously guided than a priest, accuse him of blasphemous actions?

In Plato’s Euthyphro, a dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro, the nature of piety is discussed. Euthyphro proposes several “definitions” of piety and focuses on the relation of piety to the gods. For one of these definitions, he proposes that piety is that which is loved by all the gods. In reply to this, a dilemma arises; and Socrates asks whether the pious, or holy, is loved by the gods because it is pious, or pious because it is loved by the gods. A similar form of this question asks whether the Good, or good action, is commanded by God because it is good, or good because it is commanded by God. If Euthyphro accepts the

In this interaction, Socrates considers Euthyphro to help in explaining all there is to be known about piety and the related impiety. Euthyphro confirms that he is indeed an expert in the matter relating to religious issues and can thus assist Socrates in the charges that face him. In their argument in the efforts to define the true meaning of piety, Socrates and Euthyphro engage in the analysis of issues that threaten to confuse human understanding about the whole issue of holiness and impiety in the society, (Plato & Gallop, 2008). To understand the true meaning of piety, it is of great importance to take a holistic analysis of the beliefs of the people about

However in Plato’s Euthyphro, it can be argued that Socrates plays a similar role. In the Euthyphro, Socrates discusses piety in general and what makes things and people pious. Socrates claims he wants to learn more on the subject so that he may better defend himself against the treasonous charges against him. In a way, Euthyphro represents the traditional Athenian way of thinking. He believes in and supports all of the gods and does not submit to Socrates’ prodding of the subject, although he does walk away from him in frustration at the end of the dialogue. However it can safely be said that most Athenians would agree with Euthyphro’s opinion of the gods and to disagree could most certainly be punishable by law, as Socrates was. Socrates’ search for the definition of piety is a difficult one that tests Euthyphro’s patience and ultimately leaves the characters and the reader without an answer. Every time Euthyphro proposes an answer, Socrates is quick to counter it with some thought. Interpreting Socrates’ tone and meaning here is important. Some may see Socrates to be quite demeaning in these instances, almost teasing Euthyphro because he claims to be so pious yet he cannot even define the word. In this way, similar to Aristophanes’ Clouds, Socrates plays a subversive role in the Euthyphro.

Socrates accurately contests that this definition does not provide the true nature of piety or why pious acts are in fact considered pious. By challenging Euthyphro’s perception of piety, Socrates attempts to obtain an objectivist definition of what it truly means to be pious. Socrates’ queries provide powerful support for the notion that one’s judgements regarding value is a response to objectively existing values. That is, the pious leads the gods to love it or the morally just leads one to approve it. However, perhaps the reason the dialogue draws to an aporetic conclusion, is the fact that piety may not be defined objectively. Pious acts may be considered immeasurable as they are based upon subjective individual values. Thus, the meaning of piety can differ as a result of one’s individual views and values. As one’s definition of piety may contradict another’s, acts may be regarded as both pious and impious simultaneously. Additionally, one’s own definition of what is considered pious may shift overtime, due to experience or greater understanding of a situation resulting in further discord between piety and impiety. However, whilst this Socratic dialogue does not result in a concise definition of what it means to be pious, it does indirectly enhance one’s understanding of piety by encouraging one to evaluate what the pious is

Euthyphro responds by asserting that piety is that which is approved [loved] or sanctioned by the gods; whence impiety is whatever is disapproved of by the gods. However, as Socrates points out, the question poses a dilemma for those who believe as Euthyphro does that Truth is revealed by divine authority alone.

Socrates was a moral philosopher who was accused of impiety and was about to be tried for a crime, the nature of which no one seemed to understand. The trial and death of Socrates has four dialogs known as the Euthyphro, the Apology, the Crito, and the Phaedo which describes the process of Socrates’ controversial and insightful trial that raises the questions about human morality. Within the story we learned that the relationship between morality and religion might not be as clear-cut as some might think, Socrates forces the witnesses of his trial as well as ourselves to come to conclusions which result in a paradox that conflicts with the individual beliefs of his audience. In the event in which, Socrates poses a question to himself and Euthyphro, an attempt to answer the question "What is piety?" It has a specific tie to the events in “The Trial and Death of Socrates”, for Socrates had been accused of impiety and was about to be tried for the crime of heresy. The Euthyphro dialogue was written twenty-four centuries ago, and its conclusion is devastating for the whole idea that holiness and morality are very well connected. The idea that, “if God does not make something good by commanding it, but rather instead identifies that which is good, what measurement of morality does he use to make this judgment?” If something is right because god commands it, then it follows that something would be just as right if God instructed differently. If god declares that it is right to

Euthyphro intends his definition of piety. If right actions are pious only because the gods love them, then moral rightness is completely

As Euthyphro is essentially a self-righteous man, he asserts that piety is to do as he is doing, "that is to say, prosecuting any one who is guilty of murder, sacrilege, or of similar crime whether he be your father or mother, or whoever he may be that makes no difference; and not to prosecute them is impiety" (Plato, 5e). Euthyphro's definition of piety contains many implications, the biggest of which is that Euthyphro considers himself to be a good example of piety in action.

Athenian citizens, I implore you to understand Socrates guilt within the matter of impiety. Impiety is lacking respect for a god or gods. Actions or words that go against the status quo of religious activity would certainly fall under the category of impious behavior. This includes the unnamed “divine” voice within Socrates head. Those that accused him may not have done so for the right reasons, but it does nothing to prove he is innocent of impiety.

Socrates says "you did not teach me adequately when I asked you what the pious was, but you told me that what you are doing now, prosecuting your father for murder is pious (Plato, 10) Socrates wants to know what piety is "through one form" (Plato, 10). He does not want to know which things or actions are pious, but rather what piety itself is. One cannot simply define something by giving examples so this definition does not satisfy Socrates.

& Jowett, 2013). Socrates refutes this definition since he views that the gods do not need to be assisted by mortals. In his final attempt, Euthyphro defines holiness as an exchange between the gods and human beings. The gods receive sacrifices from us, while we they grant our prayers in exchange. In response, Socrates posits that this perspective implies correlates to the prior argument on the gods’ approval. He states that if holiness is gratifying to the gods, it is ambiguous as seen in the argument concerning what the gods approve, and the influences behind them (Plato. & Gallop, 1997).

In Plato's Dialogues, there is the singly ignorant person, the individual who is ignorant of some information or truth but who knows that he is ignorant, and the doubly ignorant person, the individual who is ignorant of his own ignorance. Socrates, in the Apology, maintains that he is singly ignorant when he states that the only thing he is that he knows nothing. The singly ignorant person is in a far better position to learn than the doubly ignorant person, because the singly ignorant person admits of his ignorance and can, if he desires, take the necessary steps to remove that ignorance. This is what Socrates does in his dialoguing, a.k.a. "teaching." He is attempting to remove his own ignorance, and in some cases (such as in Euthyphro) move the doubly ignorant person to a state of single ignorance. This paper will show in context the meaning of Socrates' "ignorance" in the Apology and how it relates to his search for the truth about piety in Euthyphro.

Is it right to act in one's own best interest, or to obey the state? In other words, was Socrates right to obey the orders of the state of Athens to take poison, or should he have acted to preserve his own life by choosing exile or escaping?